ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Will Hubble leave an heir?

Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:13 PM by Alan Boyle


NASA / J. Frassanito & Assoc. / FISOWG / STScI
This artwork shows one of the possible designs
for the Advanced Technology Large-Aperture
Space Telescope, which would have more than 40
times Hubble's sensitivity.

When Hubble finally fades into the sunset, what will take its place? More space telescopes are on tap, but some question whether any of them can truly replace the grand old observatory.

If you were to ask the scientists on the Hubble Space Telescope's team whether there's a successor, they'd have a quick answer: the James Webb Space Telescope, which is destined for launch in the 2013 time frame, just when Hubble is expected to wrap up its work for good.

NASA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency are spending $3.5 billion or more on the telescope, which is destined to observe the cosmos from a gravitational balance point about 1 million miles from Earth, known as L2. It's designed to take the handoff from Hubble as NASA's greatest observatory, and I've referred to it more than once as "Hubble's Heir."

Just don't call it a successor to Hubble while Bob Zimmerman, the author of "The Universe in a Mirror," is within earshot.

"It's not!" he told me. "That would be like saying that the Spitzer Space Telescope was a successor to the Compton Gamma-Ray Telescope."

Zimmerman's point is that the Webb telescope is optimized for a set of wavelengths that are different from Hubble's sweet spot. Hubble's best observing takes place in the visible-light spectrum, the kind of light we can see with our naked eyes. In contrast, Webb will focus on infrared wavelengths, which are off the red end of the rainbow.

Astronomers say infrared telescopes provide the best way to see objects at the edge of the cosmos, because wavelengths at that distance are redshifted due to the expansion of the universe. But Zimmerman argues that false-color infrared images won't capture the public's attention the way Hubble's images have. Even though Hubble's pictures are enhanced during processing to boost the colors, the visible-light view serves as the basic framework.

"It's not that optical astronomy is the only thing - the end-all, be-all," he said. "But without the optical, it's difficult for the human brain to synthesize all the other data."

The trend in telescopes is to send up spacecraft that have been optimized for specific tasks rather than general observing. For example, NASA's Kepler probe, which had its scientific coming-out party today, is a telescope expressly designed to look for extrasolar planets.

The European Space Agency's Herschel and Planck telescopes, due for launch on Thursday, are designed to corral the infrared and microwave wavelengths, respectively. Like the James Webb telescope, Herschel and Planck are destined to hang out at the L2 point. Like Webb and Spitzer, Herschel will peer toward the far reaches of the observable universe and look into the dusty cradles of stars and planets. Like the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Planck will look for the imprint of the big bang on cosmic background radiation.

The new instruments will bring capabilities that the old instruments never had, but they're not nearly as versatile as Hubble, Zimmerman said: "Although the focused research telescopes are useful and necessary, general observatories are useful and necessary as well."

Astronomers always have plenty of big ideas for future observations, and right now a host of proposals for next-generation space telescopes are being considered as part of the National Academies' Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey. Among the concepts are the New Worlds Observer, which would seek to characterize alien worlds; and the Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Telescope (a.k.a. ATLAS Telescope), which would have more than 40 times Hubble's sensitivity.

The results of 19 NASA-funded next-generation studies - funded at levels ranging from $250,000 to $1 million - are expected to be released later this year, once the astronomers involved in the Decadal Survey have reviewed them. But the telescopes won't be launched until well after the Webb begins operations.

By then, the debate over whether to let Hubble die could well be raging once again. One of the tasks to be accomplished during a series of Atlantis spacewalks is the installation of a docking device that a future robotic craft could hook onto - in order to drive Hubble out of orbit to a controlled, fiery re-entry.

Zimmerman points out that the same docking device could conceivably accommodate spaceships carrying the supplies and/or the personnel for yet another servicing mission. Might Hubble's best successor in 2014 be ... Hubble itself?

"If Hubble is still functioning, and there is no replacement, I'm willing to bet NASA will not be talking about deorbiting it. They'll be talking about keeping it alive," Zimmerman said. "This is the telescope that refuses to die."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

2013 it's very importing year in lot of views.
Anyway, good luck with the science and the infrared eye.
The Hubble has to be one of this generation's greatest achievements, even with the original mirror issues.  I think that any talk of not continuing Hubble's mission is premature and as an American taxpaper it should be kept in service as long as possible.  Look at all the other missions NASA has undertaken that kept delivering data long after their expected demise.
To allow the Hubble telescope to die without a replacement would be terrible.  This telescope has produced some of the most fantastic picture of our Universe that have ever been shown to people.  These pictures have allowed humans to view the majesty of our Universe.  This is absolutely necessary so that science can connect with all of the hopes of people.
Sometime in the future, the Hubble telescope will be enhanced so that it could provide more pictures of our wonderful Universe.
why not dock the hubble with ISS, then servicing the hubble will be a snap, and the ISS will actually be useful for something
Keep Hubble Alive!!
Lets hope that by the time Hubble is in trouble again that everyone understands the need to save it. It's been so much easier and less expensive to repair Hubble than to try to replace how can anyone decide to just let it die. Hubble has expanded our knowledge of the universe so far beyond anyone's expectations may it be kept in service as long as we are able.
The Hubble Telescope deserves to be enshrined in the Smithsonian...if For nothing else than all it has given and taught us.  Take it from Orbit when it's "heir" assumes the watch and put it in a museum where the whole world can see the "telescope so advanced it could actually look back into time."  It deserves it.  We spend billions to bail-out companies why flip a few bucks at a (scientific / worldly) piece of history?!
If anything JWST is more properly a successor to Spitzer, not Hubble, as it will greatly improve resolution and sensitivity across a span of wavelengths that Spitzer has studied.
Here's a proposal:
1.  When the time comes, send up a robotic craft that latches onto Hubble and steers it down to a lower orbit.
2.  Send up a space crew to install a pre-fabricated de-orbit kit, which is a heat shield and a capsule to enclose the telescope.
3.  Give the encapsulated telescope the signal to de-orbit and, assuming it survives re-entry, parachutes safely down to earth.

If $328,000 for the president's 747 over NYC for a photo op is a good idea, then $30,000,000 for bringing Hubble back down must me a super good idea.
There are certain elements of science that are well- defined in the various aspects of our understanding of the universe.  Somewhere along the way we found that the earth revolves around the sun, the solar system was part of the galaxy and the Milky Way was part of the Universe.  All of these discoveries were made possible by advances in the various aspects of astronomy and astrophysics.  Hubble is, and will always be, one of the great accomplishments of the human race.  Its capabilities allowed us to change the way we view our universe.  
That being said, the genius of, and commitment to, exploration cannot be limited by sentimentality.  The next generations of space telescopes will expand our understanding even further, due largely to the lessons we have learned during the life of the HST. I fear that every cent we spend keeping Hubble flying will limit our future studies.
With the docking ring installed, the Hubble has a great potential as a higher orbit stationary platform for other science tasks. Adding a robotic laboratory module would allow it to be used for experiments that are too long a duration or too dangerous to perform at the ISS. An added propulsion module would allow Hubble to be moved out to one of the L'points or even in a high lunar orbit. Keep the Hubble up there. I can be re-tasked and it can be saved for posterity.
Great article Alan!  If only Hubble were self propagating that would definitely mean it would make it's own heir.  I don't see the new wave of space telescopes like the James Webb or the European ones being a true replacement for Hubble since they don't do much with optical light.  What's needed is another Hubble like telescope that operates with many aspects of the light spectrum.

The big downside of hoping that we can keep Hubble operating past the current 5 or 10 year life expectancy is no shuttle in 5 or 10 years to do another fix.  Without the shuttle there is little hope that Ares can do the kind of repairs and replacements going on right now on NASA tv.  I think that we need to keep the shuttle program flying much much longer as it is the ideal tool for doing space construction.  What happens when the ISS finally breaks down and we need to build another space station?  Not going to see that happen with Ares because Ares is for going to the moon and Mars.

Extend the Shuttle Program!
Go Atlantis on Fixing Hubble!
If they can't somehow tether Hubble to ISS, they should put one of those ion drives on it and send it to a lunar orbit where it could still be served and used while we develop lunar bases.  The lunar gravity is weaker and it would be easier to maintain a stable orbit with less danger from space junk.
Darrell Messbarger your message was the only one that truly made sense. How much are we willing to spend just because of our sentimental attachment to the 1st great space telescope? I heard a rumor that for the cost of 1 Hubble servicing mission we could launch a whole new version of the Hubble.
A successor to Hubble, following its new lease on life from the servicing mission, may not be the wisest thing to do scientificially.  JWST is a big leap forward from Hubble, and remember its wavelengths were chosen by scientists over the optical and UV.  If you like, JWST will be looking at optical light from distant galaxies, redshifted into the infrared.  With the success of HST, and the coming of JWST,the optical has been deeply mined scientifically.  That means any following mission has to be larger and more expensive, and these projects are already very expensive and very complex indeed.  I suggest we might want to study wavelengths that are poorly studied in comparsion - more chances for new discoveries.  Advances in science often come from going in new directions, not redoing the same thing.
"why not dock the hubble with ISS, then servicing the hubble will be a snap, and the ISS will actually be useful for something"

Different orbits, no easy way to move it.

And you wouldn't wabt it rigidly docked to ISS anyway. Hubble does some very fine pointing at tracking that would be easily disturbed by physical activity (human and mechanical) on ISS.
Everyone keeps asking why NASA wants to let the Hubble Telescope burn up in our atmosphere, but no one ever tells anyone why they have to do that.  It's because the telescope is radioactive now.  All these years of being bombarded by the suns radiation without any protection has made it toxic.  
"We spend billions to bail-out companies why flip a few bucks at a (scientific / worldly) piece of history?!"

Only the Shuttle could bring it back. Pretty soon, we won't have that. (And while NASA decided to take the risk of a non-ISS Shuttle mission to keep it working, you'd not likely get support for a similar mission sent just to *retrieve* it.)

Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be *nice* to have it back...
This is why we need some sort of space vehicle that has the capability of traveling from the ISS to another point in low earth orbit (under 500 miles in altitude).  This vehicle would remain permanently docked at the ISS except for when there is work to be done.  When a need arises, such as a future Hubble servicing, the astronauts are trained on the ground and supplies and parts for the job are sent up to the ISS via a robot cargo ship.  The repair crew comes up to the ISS via a man rated ship, transfers to the "tug" and go off to do their repair job.  When they are finished they return to the ISS and return to earth via the man rated ship that they came up in.  The "tug" could also be used to bring items down from a higher orbit for repair at the ISS and then it can return them to their original orbit.  We need to get out of the mode of special missions for this sort of repair work.  The ISS is our current outpost in low earth orbit.  We need to provide the tools such as a "tug" vehicle that will allow us to expand the function of the ISS and maximize the investment in our assets in earth orbit.  This is a step in making operations more routine in space.  
The singular most important piece of scientific equipment of the 20th century? I wonder what conclusions/theories Ptolemy, DaVinci, Newton, Einstein, etc. would have come to with the information Hubble has provided us. Congratulations to all who have worked on this telescope over the years. Simply amazing.
Zimmermans's last comment is very optimistic and I hope quite true.

The HST is magical. Watching NASA-TV and the repair mission should be done by anyone who has a proper internet connection. It shows first hand what working in space is all about. I am personally amazed at the construction of the HST and how things just fit back together after all this time in space. You'd think that somethings would slightly warp and be thrown out of alignment..but no!

Also, these transmissions surely fire the imagination of most any child.
It's worth noting that in addition to the Orion-style docking ring, the spacewalkers are going to - get this - put new handles on Hubble's access doors to make getting inside easier. "Last repair mission"? Ha! Here's hoping for many more years of science from this magnificent instrument.
Darrel said: "I fear that every cent we spend keeping Hubble flying will limit our future studies."
Hubble is just a platform to hold instruments in orbit. I believe I read that the new camera they are installing increases Hubble's sensitivity over some wavelengths by an order of magnitude or better. The technology behind Hubble's components has advanced and will continue to do so. Who is to say that once the serviceable limit of this upgrade is reached, another won't enhance its capabilities even more than this one?  If it is economically feasible to continue upgrading Hubble, I think we should. Unfortunately, that prospect may vanish along with the shuttle.
Every new entry into astronomical observation adds to our understanding of the beauty of the universe. As a background to it all, the Hubble just continues to give it's imagery to help all of us see what's out there. Barring some catastrophic failure, I can't see any reason why it should not be repaired and upgraded as needed for years to come.
Why refer to Hubble as NASA's greatest observatory? Hubble is a joint venture between the ESA and NASA!
According to the Myan Calendar December 21, 2012 is the start of a new era.  This thought alone could give new life to Hubble in 2013. :-)
I like Autokad's idea.  The ISS should be a platform for many things.  Why can't we do that with the current set up for ISS?  Can we make that happen?
So many awesome and inspiring comments and suggestions here which i find totally fascinating. I just wished there was someone who is able to read these and put them into actual consideration and hopefully be used? I think you're all doing a great job with all these suggestions. If there is someone actually listening who can do something about it I'd love to hear about it. My email is samhainaz@yahoo.com (since I dont always come on here to read this on a regular basis). Thank you!
I thought the world was going to end in 2012? why worry about the next teslescope? besides NASA is not what it used to be anyways... but im sure he chinese will come up with something...
The decision to take Hubble down is not so smart. It could take pitures for the next 100 years and still only see a fraction of the universe. At least it can be serviced. What happens when the Webb telescope breaks down considering it's a million miles away instead of 350 miles?
When Hubbles days are done it should be brought back and put in the Smithsonian. If we can't do it now why not attach a rocket and send it into a very high parking orbit so that 25 or 50 years from now we could bring it home.
I remember when the Hubble was launched, I was in second grade! Remember how cool it was? A telescope in outer space! Who would have thought. Now we have how many telescopes that can see in how many wavelengths!? Awesome. I will admit a little sentimentality when it comes to the Hubble, I love that thing. We should definitely save it for posterity. It is after all, a testament to mans inginuity and our progress in exploration. I mean come on, we sent it up, it was broken, so we fixed it and ended up with an awesome telescope. If I had a Universe I would want a Hubble to look at it with.
The same docking ring and deorbit motor could also be used to BOOST the orbit, which would keep Hubble in a safe location for decades, if not centuries.  Why not go up, instead of down?  Even if it isn't usable, it won't decay, and can always be repaired or salvaged later.
Keep Hubble Alive!! PLZ):
One of the news guys pointed out that Hubble cost 10000000000 (Ten Billion) Over 19 years and divided out by roughly 362 Million tax payers that's $1.46/year per tax payer.  Heck lets keep servicing this one and and launch a new one in 5-6 years with updated technology also. Well worth the money Id chip in an extra $2.00/ year to keep it. I am sure that we could adapt Orion/Ares to service Hubble.  
After it gives up, stick it in a higher orbit as Eric suggests - makes alot more sense, Its part of our heritage!
Personally, I think we should design a telescope to see whats going on here on earth. The amount of money being spent to look backward in time is a total waste, we need to look forward. Feeding hungrey children seems like a much better idea then trying to prove some dumb theroy about a big bang. If we took all the money ever spent on space and all the related costs, perhaps there would be no hungry people, and everyone might have a home. Remember, while all you OVERpaid scicne types ponder the universe, some kid somewhere dies because he has no food.
Alan - you noted some of the new space telescopes that will be kinda replacing Hubble, but there are two that have just been launched.  The European Space Agency has successfully put the Herschel and the Planck Telescopes on their way to the Lagrange Points, a two-month journey to get them set up for work on distant and early galaxies (Herschel, with a mirror about one and a half times the size of Hubble's mirror) and the Big Bang (Planck).  

Check out 'Al Jazeera English' for more details. The report didn't say that pictures would be shared, like Hubble's stunning depictions are, but we can hope, can't we?  
So wonderful, relaxing, inspiring and energizing to read these comments on Hubble-after spending the past couple of years around people who care only about their own little selves and nothing else, it's given me new life.  

20,000 people showed up for this 'last' service mission-this proves there are people out there who truly care about space exploration-without it, Humanity will become extinct since we will waste the planet's resources and have no where to go if we do not explore the cosmos ahead of time by robots.  

As for the comment about wasting the money-sure, this is tax payers dollars but you also have to realize that there will always be hungry children because their parents decided to have one or more when they themselves are starving.  I feel for the young, but in reality the solution to make it where no one starves means limiting who can have kids-aka those who can afford it or why complain about being poor-as well as the fact that instead of wasting food on large sizes at fast food joints it should be limited to one size-that alone would save up a lot of food and hence could then be transported to where it is needed.

So the solution is not the fact that NASA is a waste of tax payer's dollars, it is instead the opposite, and limiting the amount of restaurants which can be built as well as their food serving portions, eliminating so many size choices will save tons of food-it is this which can be used to save children, not eliminating NASA since it is the pinnacle of this generation's creative genius with people being employed and shuttling up to space from all over the world-without being creative we will cease to evolve.
Watching the astronauts work on the HST via their helmet cams, I get the sense working with those gloves is easier than we are often led to believe. They seem relatively nimble.
Hubble is a national treasure. Like the U.S. itself, initially seeming destined to be a failed experiment, it instead became an incredible, wildly unimaginable success for the benefit of all of humanity.

Who cares what the cost. Either continue to service it while it's still economically feasable. If not, then park it in a higher orbit or safely retrieve it to be placed in the Smithsonian.

Ironic as it is only a machine but a fiery re-entry would be a crime against humanity.
"Feeding hungrey children seems like a much better idea then trying to prove some dumb theroy about a big bang."

You speak as if no one is spending any money on that, too.

Do you know? Have you checked? Don't expect it to make the same headlines.

Why should only America be tasked with stopping hunger?! Roger I think it nervy to think you have the worlds food shortage solution by eliminating space and science exploration. If you need a complex surgery that the preoceses came from space exploration and space experiements then you die based on your theory. The ways to stopping hunger are all of the ideas we have come up with and limiting population growth to some extent. The cost of relocating the food alone will kill the effort. Many countries need to help as if it is not an all for one type approach it will fail too.

Save and maintain our space tools as earth may one day not support us humans any longer if we keep using all the resources and fighting becoming as green as we can as fast as we can.
Spending money to look at things on earth?  Have you googled or mapquested lately?  Geesh!
James Oberg did a nice article years ago on why the Hubble cannot and should not be saved.   I hated that article because I want the Hubble to be brought back and put in a museum.  But James was right.  

The main problem is that there was only one Shuttle properly built and equipped to launch or recover the Hubble.  That was the Columbia, may she and her crew rest in peace.  And even the Columbia may have had problems trying to land with something that heavy on board.  It's never been done.  

Using another shuttle might be done, maybe, but only at extreme risk to the ship and her crew.  And extreme cost.  By the time comes to do that mission, the Shuttle program would have been mothballed.  

Ares is a joke.  A sure thing designed to be too simple to kill any crew or fail in any other way.  That's it's secret goal.  In so doing it will fail to be bold or adventurous and fail to blaze any new trails.   The Shuttle is not perfect. It has failed to live up to its promises in many areas, but also done a lot of great things.  The ISS has also failed to live up to its promises but done other great things.

Ares builds on nothing from thos missions.  Ares is not an advancement.  Areas is like having a crash on your bike with training wheels and deciding that you're never doing THAT again and going back to walking.  Forget ever learning how to ride a bike or ever driving a car.  No, some shoes please.  That is what NASA is doing with Ares.  Shoes.  Nothing harder.

I will second the idea of securing the Hubble Telescope to the International Space Station. It will provide the taxpayers like me with a reason to continue paying for the existence of the ISS.  

[ALAN ADDS: Unfortunately, there's no way to put the Hubble and the ISS together unless you had a super-duper-rocket or starship. This story explains it all:]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30648844/

I'm hoping when the time comes that someone will have the imagination to push Hubble out of orbit and into open space, where it can continue to send back images, rather than deliberately destroy it.  This one device has paid back the original investment and then some...
Since there seem to be a lot of people not understanding the value of this kind of science, let's put it in perspective.

In order for the human race, its successors, and life as we know it on earth to survive to the end of time (which will happen, the end of time, but that's another story) we need to be certain that earth does not come (or is not already) within the gravitational field of a black hole.  If that happens or has already happened, then there's no escape and our fate is sealed.

If, on the other hand, we begin colonizing other areas of space and planting life on other bodies outside the solar system, then we set in motion the game of leap-frog that may enable life to survive forever outside the clutches of a black hole.  But this movement, and the study and investment that goes with it, must begin immediately each time we have the scientific capability to go forward or we may lose our chance.  In cosmic terms, even the delay of a few years may doom life from earth from escaping the grip of the nearest black hole.  When put in these terms the space program takes on an immediacy we might not otherwise ever have conceived...
These are great posts, and a good article too.

I have to agree with Patrick on 5/16 that what we really need is a replacement for the Shuttle fleet - Ares is IMO a backward step to the time of Apollo/Soyuz - landing by parachute on water or land in a discardable capsule with no cargo capacity is not moving forward.  As flights to Moon and other planets take hold we will discover that an intermediate base such as ISS, with a reuseable shuttle to and from earth will be invaluable.

What we need in parallel with Ares is a replacement and upgrade to the Shuttle.  We have learned through bitter experience what are the pitfalls to a winged reentry configuration and can design fundamental solutions to them.  Costly? - yes - but like ISS can be ameliorated by internationalizing it - incl. bringing in China and India.  And building runways and servicing centers in Asia, Europe and Russia.

Time to be bold - not just in our goals of return to the Moon and onto Mars.
Great article. The space program brings to us all great information and goals for the future.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1931108

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google